Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA27317 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:12:48 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:15:22 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <3AD628FA.9906.ED9C1C@localhost> In-reply-to: <013901c0c3ba$acdd6de0$5eaefea9@rcn.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 12 Apr 2001, at 21:40, Aaron Agassi wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 9:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Determinism
>
>
> > On 12 Apr 2001, at 12:23, Scott Chase wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> > > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > >Subject: Re: Determinism
> > > >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 22:02:37 -0500
> > > >
> > > >On 11 Apr 2001, at 19:59, Scott Chase wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> > > > > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > > >Subject: Re: Determinism
> > > > > >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:35:33 -0500
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On 9 Apr 2001, at 16:05, Robin Faichney wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 09:13:54AM -0400, Wade T.Smith
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course, the explanation for step two (as in that
> > > > > > > > famous comic) that they do use is "then a miracle
> > > > > > > > occurs" which is the time-honored hand-wave of the
> > > > > > > > theologically biased.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now what does that remind me of? I know -- "top-down
> > > > > > > causation"! :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >Miracles are then predicted and observed every day in
> > > > > >PET-scan labs all over the world. Some would call it
> > > > > >science.
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Please elaborate on how "top-down causation" has been
> > > > > demonstrated by P.E.T.
> > > > >
> > > >I have posted to you at length answering this question and have
> > > >received no response from you to my post. People report that
> > > >they are going to view a picture or read a text or listen to
> > > >music or speech or remember something they saw or heard, symbolic
> > > >or otherwise, and the appropriate areas subtending these
> > > >functions light up on the PET scan 99.999... % of the time. If
> > > >they didn't, PET scanning would be of no use in brain mapping,
> > > >but it is, as the areas which light up are exactly the areas
> > > >which have been damaged in people unable to perform the
> > > >particular subtended functions.
> > > >
> > > So there's a relationship between brain regions and
> > > behavior...interesting. Does this imply a certain causal
> > > directionality between behavior and area? >
> > >
> > When a decision is made and before it is acted upon, the P-300
> > neural site in the top center of the cerebral cortex spikes (an
> > impulse runs through it).
> > >
> > > >A) "I'm gonna do X" >
> > >
> > > >From where does the impetus to do X stem from?
> > >
> > >From one's consideration of a perceptually presented situation,
> > taking into account one's self-interest, one's goals and purposes,
> > and extrapolations from one's retained experiences of similar
> > situations, and how various actions modified them.
> > >
> > >> >B) appropriate area
> > > Y lights up >Repeat ad nauseum and A follows B with a
> > > prohibitively high >coefficient. >Scientific conclusion: A (the
> > > higher announced decision) causes B >(the accessing of the
> > > particular area of the supporting lower >material substrate). >
> > > What caused A or was A uncaused? > >Once again, it's called
> > > science, is exactly how
> > > >scientific hypotheses are tested and corroborated, and I'm
> > > >prepared to repeat same 1200 times onlist if necessary. If some
> > > >people >here
> > > have cognitive presupposition problems with these established
> > > >empirical facts, and they seem to, I'm just glad that I'm not one
> > > >of them.
> > >
> > > Is "top down causation" explicitly referred to in the P.E.T.
> > > studies you are basing your arguments on or are you interpreting
> > > these studies in the light of top-down causation?
> > >
> > No, it is an explicit theory originating with Nobel Laureate roger
> > Sperry; a theory which is central to the most prevalent stance found
> > in contemporary cognitive neuroscience, that of emergent
> > materialism.
> > >
> > > > Would the entity
> > > which constitutes the "top" itself emerge from something that is
> > > indeed below? Could this "top" be subject to reduction? The
> > > pattern does indeed emerge from the substrate and is
> > > >existentially dependent upon it, but cannot be reduced to it.
> > >
> > > Is this a
> > > methodological limitation or something that is inherent in the
> > > system itself?
> > >
> > It is an inherent property of emergent systems which are
> > sufficiently complex to be recursive and self-referential; in such
> > cases, the recursion uses the material substrate pathways without
> > (totally) originating from or being caused by outside factors
> > feeding into them, such as from the environment.
> > >
> > > We may be limited in our capacity to reduce, but this does not
> > > imply that things are not happening from the bottom up. > > > > >
> > > I could envision a so-called "top" element stemming from other > >
> > > elements projecting causal arrows into it from below and itself >
> > > > sending causal arrows downward to other elements, but a
> > > full-blown > > "top" element not derived from other elements would
> > > have came into > > existence out of thin air now wouldn't it? > >
> > > >But it doesn't. I never denied the existence of bottom-up
> > > >causation; I simply stated that it was not the only kind of
> > > causation >in operation. Recursive loops involve both kinds of
> > > causation in >concert. It is a matter of "in addition to" instead
> > > of "instead of." > Isn't the overall casual flow from the bottom
> > > up and wouldn't "top" components decompose to lesser levels,
> > > though not amenable to limited methods of investigation? > > > > >
> > > In essence the "top" > > decomposes into lower level elements. > >
> > > >No it doesn't; while existentially dependent upon them, it is not
> > > >reduceable to them. The whole is mereologically composed of its
> > > >parts plus their myriad interrelations, both feedback and
> > > >feedforward, and the organizing principle of the gestalt whole
> > > >cannot be deconstructed into polyfurcated components without
> > > >destroying its configurational integrity.
> > >
> > > I appreciate the importance of relations between
> > > components and the whole being a little more than mere summation
> > > of parts, but this relects complex interactions and would still be
> > > compatible with a general bottom up causal flow. Now some
> > > compoents could tightly interweave and become a superpart which
> > > could send causal arrows of its own to other compents, but this
> > > superpart is still decomposable to its constituent elements (at
> > > least in theory though practice would be messy if not impossible).
> > >
> > Not when to decompose would involve separating elements whose
> > separation would involve the destruction of the gestalt whole, and
> > that is what we are discussing here with the emergent self.
> > >
> > > I can appreciate a healthy dose of holism (Gestalt or whatever)
> > > mixed with a respectable dose of reduction. There are likely a
> > > myriad of interactions and properties which emerge, but it's too
> > > easy to get overly metaphysical and downright mystical when
> > > overselling emergentism, Gestaltism or whatever philosophical
> > > stace which flirts with holism. Top down arrows could exist,but
> > > would likely break down, upon closer expression to preceding
> > > causes emanating from below.
> > >
> > Top-down and bottom-up interact in recursively complex emergent
> > systems, and it cannot be said where either ends and the other
> > begins.
> > >
> > > My head hurts.
> > > >
> > > >If you continue to have
> > > >problems cognizing this, I suggest that you peruse the book
> > > >EMERGENCE by John H. Holland of the Santa Fe Institute.
> > > >
> > > Is anything with any meat on its bones coming from Santa Fe or is
> > > it merely highly theoretical or speculative abstraction...ideas
> > > awaiting an application to show itself in the real world?
> > >
> > A lot of money has been made applying the principles of
> > complexity theory (as developed by Kenneth Arrow) to the stock
> > market. Our most sophisticated life and ecology sims have been
> > applications of John Holland's work (EMERGENCE and HIDDEN ORDER are
> > two good sources). Work on morphic constraints upon evolution and
> > the spontaneous occurrence of morphic regularities has been done by
> > Stuart Kauffman (AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE (popular) and THE ORIGINS
> > OF ORDER (academic)) elucidate these. And much more is being done,
> > and applied, by many more who have NOT won Nobels (these have).
> > >
> > >> > > > >Whatver
> > > emerges from the lower > > levels would be responsible for
> > > influencing other lower level elements, > > which is the same as
> > > saying lower level elements communicate through an > > elaborate
> > > causal web (or nexus) to influence other lower level > > elements.
> > > > > >There is influence, of course, but it can be, with effort,
> > > resisted. Or >not. This is the freedom of choice which effort
> > > allows. The >recursive level at which self-referential
> > > considerations take >place cannot be fragmented into nonrecursive
> > > components without >destroying it.
> > >
> > > I
> > > think freedom of will or volition stems from the complexity of the
> > > nexus below. Interelation of parts and all that apply, but this is
> > > mere babble on my part. Maybe there are degrees of freedom and
> > > multiple combinations which would make my head swim.
> > >
> > I'm not claiming absolute freedom; I'm arguing for partial freedom,
> > a degree of it, against the purveyors of absolute determinism. A
> > lot of determinism exists, but the universe in general (especially
> > the microphysical), and self-conscious awareness in particular (due
> > to Godelian complexity), are not amenable to absolute
> > superdeterminism.
>
> All that the Incompleteness Theorem states is that any sufficiently
> complex model also allows for statements that are neither implicit nor
> necessary from the minimum required axioms.
>
> But that does not preclude a hypothetical complete set of axioms plus
> all of the additional true statements.
>
It means that any axiomatic system A which is sufficiently
complex to permit recursion, that is, self-reference, must be either
incomplete 9not contain all true statements) or incorrect (contain
false statements).
Let us postulate axiomatic system A, and stipulate that all true
statements, and only true statements, are contained within it. Now
let us construct statement B. B is recursive or self-referential, i.e.
it talks about itself, and what b says is that "B is not an axiom of
A." Where do we put statement B? If we include B within system
A, then A includes the incorrect statement B which says that B is
not an axiom of A, and thus does not contain ONLY true
statements, but if we exclude B from system A, then A does not
include the true statement that B is not an axiom of A, and thus
does not contain ALL true statements, and there is no wiggle room
between the horns of this fatal dilemma. To put it simply, B must
belong either inside or outside A, but to put it more precisely, B
belongs either 1) both inside and outside A or 2) neither inside nor
outside A, and the dilemma is unresolveable within axiomatic
system A. But WE are the B statements in the axiomatic system
A of the universe; since we have evolved the capacity to
perceptually and conceptually represent the universe of which we
are a part, we are neither seamlessly blended with that from which
we arose and which we recursively apprehend, nor nonrelationally
bifurcated from it; we RELATE to it. We are 'neti, neti' (not this,
not that) in the Zen formulation. and as such, we are
undecideable, that is, free, rather than being absolutely
superdetermined by the axioms of A
> > >
> > > > > > > > Would
> > > "top-down causation" thus vaporize upon closer inspection? > >
> > > >No, it would not, for the above reasons. > >
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 04:15:49 BST